Civil Procedure – Adjournments – Misuse by Defendant – Petitioner-defendant repeatedly sought adjournments, delaying cross-examination of plaintiff’s witness in eviction suit – Over ten adjournments granted from 2015 to 2019, with costs imposed twice – Despite High Court's final warning, petitioner failed to utilize last opportunity for cross-examination – Trial Court's order closing cross-examination right upheld by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Court emphasizes the need to curb adjournment culture to maintain confidence in the justice system and uphold Rule of Law [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Responsibility – Timely Justice – Courts should avoid routine granting of adjournments, which delays justice and undermines trust in the judiciary – Importance of diligent case management highlighted to ensure effective and timely disposal of cases – Supreme Court stresses duty of judicial officers to resist undue adjournments and prioritize litigants' right to timely justice [Paras 5-5.6].

Decision – Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Supreme Court condemns the misuse of judicial grace and repeated adjournments by the petitioner – Affirms lower courts' decisions to close right of cross-examination due to persistent delays by the defendant [Para 6].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination – State acquired land for constructing government quarters and a road – Initial possession taken in 1984 and 1992 – Market value assessed by Reference Court at Rs. 70 per square feet – High Court reduced compensation to Rs. 29 per square feet – Supreme Court restores compensation to Rs. 70 per square feet – Deductions for development costs assessed at 50% due to rocky and moorum soil, and other factors [Paras 1-17].

Development Cost Deduction – Applied due to large area acquisition compared to smaller plot exemplars – Sale deeds of smaller plots used to determine market value – Deduction justified based on the nature of the land and time elapsed since possession – Supreme Court affirms 50% deduction, resulting in Rs. 70 per square feet compensation [Paras 12-17].

Interest on Compensation – Landowners entitled to 9% interest per annum from the date of possession (1984/1992) until notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act – Supreme Court awards interest for the pre-acquisition period, acknowledging deprivation of land use rights – Other statutory benefits to apply from the date of award until realization [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Compensation at Rs. 70 per square feet restored – Interest at 9% per annum from date of possession until notification under Section 4 – Other statutory benefits from the date of award until realization – High Court's reduction of compensation overturned [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law – Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt – Appellant convicted for assaulting the victim with a sword, resulting in amputation of the victim's right leg below the knee and right forearm below the elbow – Trial court's judgment affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court rejects appeal, highlighting the brutality and permanent disability caused to the victim – Emphasizes the unpardonable nature of the crime and the need for stern punishment [Paras 1-32].

Compromise – Sentencing – Appellant sought reduction in sentence based on a compromise with the victim – Supreme Court finds the compromise insufficient for altering the sentence – Notes that the compromise was reached 28 years after the incident and did not reflect genuine reconciliation – Stresses that compromise alone cannot be the sole basis for reducing the sentence without considering aggravating and mitigating factors [Paras 16-31].

Section 357 CrPC – Compensation to Victim – Court orders the appellant to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as monetary compensation to the victim – Highlights the importance of providing financial relief to the victim for the injuries and permanent disability suffered [Paras 8, 30].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2 lakhs compensation affirmed – Supreme Court underscores the severity of the crime and the long-term suffering of the victim, rejecting any leniency based on the late-stage compromise [Paras 31-32].

Civil Procedure – Reduction of Compensation – Appellate Power – High Court reduced compensation awarded by Tribunal in an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement – High Court construed functional disability at 20% instead of 50% assessed by Tribunal without cross-objection or appeal from Insurance Company – Supreme Court held High Court erred in exercising Order 41 Rule 33 powers to reduce compensation in absence of challenge by respondents – Tribunal's award restored [Paras 1-18].

Order 41 Rule 33 CPC – Scope and Application – Appellate Court's power under Order 41 Rule 33 is broad but must be exercised with caution and not to disadvantage appellant – Should be used in exceptional cases to avoid injustice – High Court's reduction of compensation unjustified without respondent's appeal or cross-objection [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Compensation of Rs. 542,633/- awarded by Tribunal restored – Respondent-Insurance Company directed to pay compensation with 7% interest per annum from claim petition date till actual payment within three months [Paras 18-20].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Lack of Evidence – Allegations against appellant included refusal to marry the deceased leading to his suicide – FIR claimed appellant and her family abused deceased with casteist remarks and forced poison – No material evidence of relationship or abetment by appellant – Appellant had previously complained to police about deceased stalking her – Supreme Court finds no credible evidence to proceed against appellant under Section 306 IPC or Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1-12].

Quashing of Proceedings – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – High Court dismissed application for quashing due to factual disputes – Supreme Court emphasizes need for positive act instigating suicide to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC – Mere harassment without direct act insufficient for conviction – Application under Section 482 CrPC appropriate for lack of prima facie evidence [Paras 6-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Proceedings under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act quashed – Application under Section 482 CrPC allowed [Paras 12].

Income Tax – Advance Tax and Interest – Assessee's liability for interest under Section 234B – Assessee, a non-resident company, contended no liability due to the payer's default in deducting tax – Supreme Court held that prior to financial year 2012-13, assessee could reduce advance tax liability by the amount deductible at source – Post-2012 amendment introduced proviso to Section 209(1)(d) barring such reduction if tax was not deducted – Amendment applicable from financial year 2012-13 onward – Appeals for periods before this amendment not liable for interest under Section 234B – Revenue's remedy against defaulting payer remains unaffected [Paras 1-25].

Interpretation of Tax Provisions – Sections 209(1)(d) and 234B – Court observed Section 209 relevant for computing advance tax – Prior to 2012 amendment, advance tax calculation allowed reduction for tax deductible even if not actually deducted – Post-2012 amendment clarified non-reduction if tax was not deducted – Section 234B construed in conjunction with Section 209 – Interest under Section 234B not applicable for periods before amendment where tax was deductible at source but not deducted [Paras 14-20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed for periods prior to 2012 amendment – Appeals for periods post-amendment upheld – High Court and ITAT judgments favoring assessee for pre-2012 periods affirmed – Costs in favor of assessee [Para 22].

Service Law – False Declaration and Suppression of Facts – Employee failed to disclose criminal conviction during application and document verification – Terminated after discovery – High Court quashed termination relying on Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 and benefit of Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act – Supreme Court emphasizes employer's right to assess suitability and trustworthiness – Employee's suppression of material facts and false declaration justify termination – High Court's reliance on subsequent benefit under Section 12 not applicable as material facts were suppressed at relevant time [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Review – Employment and Character Verification – Importance of truthful disclosure in employment applications – False declarations undermine trust and suitability for employment – Employer has discretion to terminate services for such dishonesty – Subsequent acquittal or benefit under law does not negate initial suppression and dishonesty – Supreme Court reiterates principles from precedents emphasizing non-disclosure and false declarations as grounds for termination [Paras 6-11].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders set aside – Termination of respondent upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Review – Tender Process – Scope and Limitations – Judicial review of contractual matters is limited to checking arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, and mala fides – Courts should not substitute their decision for that of the tendering authority – The process must be lawful, not necessarily sound – Transparency and fair play are essential, but the Government must have freedom in contractual matters to ensure commercial prudence [Paras 2-7].

Tender Specifications – Competition and Transparency – Challenge to tender conditions alleged to favor certain bidders – Petitioners claimed conditions were designed to limit competition – Supreme Court emphasizes that conditions for tenders are within the domain of the executive – Courts should refrain from interfering unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides – The tendering authority's expertise in commercial decisions must be respected [Paras 27-29].

Public Interest and Costs – Judicial Intervention – Tender jurisdiction must balance transparency and efficiency in public procurement – Excessive judicial interference can hinder commercial activities – Costs should follow the event to deter frivolous litigation – Supreme Court awarded costs to the successful appellant and the State for defending against the challenge, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint in commercial matters [Paras 50-60].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Costs awarded to appellant and the State [Paras 50-60].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Plaintiffs filed suit in 1987 challenging tenancy order and sale certificate from 1963 and 1954 respectively – Claimed lack of notice and fraud in proceedings – Supreme Court emphasizes limitation as a mixed question of fact and law, asserting that claims of knowledge at a particular time must be accepted at Order 7 Rule 11 stage – Courts erred in rejecting plaint without considering evidence on plaintiffs' lack of notice [Paras 10-14].

Jurisdiction – Section 85 and 85A of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act – Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction not absolute – Section 85A mandates Civil Court to refer issues to competent authority under Act before deciding suit – Plaintiffs alleged fraud and collusion in tenancy proceedings – Civil Court required to examine these claims and possible exemption under Section 88-B before rejecting plaint [Paras 20-25].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of trial court and High Court set aside – Suit restored to file – No order as to costs [Para 26].